argument51【自由女神小组作业】

hemaUID: 2190745

51The following appeared in a medical newsletter.
"Doctors have long suspected that secondary infections may keep some patients from healing quickly after severe muscle strain. This hypothesis has now been proved by preliminary results of a study of two groups of patients. The first group of patients, all being treated for muscle injuries by Dr. Newland, a doctor who specializes in sports medicine, took antibiotics regularly throughout their treatment. Their recuperation time was, on average, 40 percent quicker than typically expected. Patients in the second group, all being treated by Dr. Alton, a general physician, were given sugar pills, although the patients believed they were taking antibiotics. Their average recuperation time was not significantly reduced. Therefore, all patients who are diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment."

In the argument, the author claims that all patients who diagnosed with muscle strain would be well advised to take antibiotics as part of their treatment. To substantiate this assumption, the author cites the facts that the patients who were taking antibiotics and treated by Dr. Newland, are 40 percent quicker than typically expected. However, as it stands, the argument renders unconvincing because it relies on unsubstantiated assumptions.
At first, in order to support this argument, the author cites the evidence that during the two groups of the patients, patients the group which was treated by Dr. Newland recuperated 40% percent quicker than typically expected. However, the evidence is relies on unsubstantiated assumption. The argument does not tell us any detailed information about the two groups, we do not know the age and the condition of their treatment. There is entirely possible that the patients in different groups are in different treatment condition and they are also in different ages. Maybe the patients in the group which is quicker are almost young peole while the patients in another group are the elders. Also maybe the patients in the quicker groups are less serious muscle strain than the patients of another. Without ruling out the possible reasons can cause the differences of the recuperation time in the two groups patients, the assumption is unsubstantiated.
secendly, even the patients of the two groups are in the same condition and in the same age, we also cannot trust the evidence that 40 percent quicker than typically expected on the recuperation time. because the two groups are treated bt two different doctors, one of which is Dr.Newland and specialized in sports medicine, another of which is Dr. Alton- a genaral physician. As the argument does not give out any information about they treated the patients, we have no ideas about the evidence with cogency. It is highly possible that the recuperation time's shorten all because Dr. Newland have much more experiences on treat the muscle injuries, and his method to the muscle injuries is much more efficient than Dr. Alton's. As the author does not give out any information to rule out the possible that the different of the methods of the two doctors cause the different on the recuperation time, the evidence is untrusted.
In the third place, although we admit the evidence is persuadable, we could not let every patient who has muscle injuries take antibiotics. Becuase even the evidence can prove that antibiotics is effective in muscle injuries treatment, antibiotics is not suited all kinds of the muscle injuries. So without giving any information to support the assumption, the assumption is unconvinced.
In conclusion, the argument is not well persuasive as it stands. To strengthen it, the author would need to provide clear information about the evidence, about the age and the condition of the patients, I also need the information about the different between the methods of the two doctors.

[ 本帖最后由 hema 于 2007-2-21 22:25 编辑 ]